Their Note says
that the draft Resolution cover the use of border controls (to
exclude suspected troublemakers) and the "exchange of personal
data" which should not be adopted as a "political and
non-binding text" but as a formal, binding, measure which
would require national and European parliaments to be consulted.

It goes on to
say that the use of Article 2.2 of the Schengen Implementing
Convention which allows border controls to be exercised with
the EU:

"is an
exception to the rule [and].. is only possible in special situations
"

increased
internal border control "is not an end in itself" and
any measure should set out criteria to "justify these security
measures".

The Dutch government
is concerned too over the idea that national police and public
order agencies would pass over personal details of suspected
troublemakers to the state where a protest is to take place.
It even questions whether previous convictions constitute legitimate
grounds for passing over data. Convictions:

"do not
of themselves constitute justification for taking measures in
the context of public order or public safety"

The Note says
that "some caution is necessary" if it is intended:

"to include
the data in a common list in the interests of public order"
and wants the full protection of the EU's 1995 Data Protection
Directive to be included.

Source: "Draft
Council Resolution on security at European Council meetings and
other comparable events", full-text: 12078/03 (pdf)